Czechoslovak nuclear weapons? Warszaw Pact War Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War ...)

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell
you
it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a
cylinder
40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed
only
27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb"
it
is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."

But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:

"We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
probably closer to 15 than 11)."

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

Brooks


--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:


Having actually seen a SADM (minus a real core, of course), I can tell

you

it is not a "suitcase" device, unless you haul around one hell of a
suitcase. It is closer in size to a garbage can (like the large kitchen
variety). It pressed the ability of being a manportable device (the guy
lugging it on his back could not carry much else in the way of mission
equipment). As the Nuclear Weapons Archive describes it: "It was a

cylinder

40 cm by 60 cm, and weighed 68 kg (the actual warhead portion weighed

only

27 kg). Although the Mk-54 SADM has itself been called a "suitcase bomb"

it

is more like a "steamer trunk" bomb, especially considering its weight."

But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:

"We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
probably closer to 15 than 11)."

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html


He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

That isn't how I understood it.

'This is probably a fair description of the W-54 Davy Crockett warhead.
This warhead was the lightest ever deployed by the US, with a minimum
mass of about 23 kg (it also came in heavier packages)'

John

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

But there is a rather scary little piece about suitcase nukes at the
Nuclear Weapons Archive, which says about suitcase nukes:

"We can now try to estimated the absolute minimum possible mass for a
bomb with a significant yield. Since the critical mass for alpha-phase
plutonium is 10.5 kg, and an additional 20-30% of mass is needed to make
a significant explosion, this implies 13 kg or so. A thin beryllium
reflector can reduce this by a couple of kilograms, but the necessary
high explosive, packaging, triggering system, etc. will add mass, so the
true absolute minimum probably lies in the range of 11-15 kg (and is
probably closer to 15 than 11)."

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation);

Not particularly. The high explosives would add up to a couple of
kilograms, for sure, but the beryllium won't need to be thick (and
therefore would not add much to the weight), the triggering system would
be negligible in weight (a handful of detonators, a timing system, and
some batteries). At most, you're looking at *maybe* 15 kilograms for
the whole device. My personal toolkit weighs more than that, full up.

Note that you're not going to build something this small on a shoestring
budget or from public documents, either. Very small nukes take very
large mathematics.

in that same article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest
practical sherical device ever fielded, and then also describes the
linear implosion devices (which are narrower, but also longer) used
in arty rounds. None of the fielded weapons ever got below around 100
pounds or so.

The artillery shells and Davy Crockett were all *projectiles*, and had a
lot of extra weight in casings and shockproofing. A lightweight nuke
would need none of that, and would be *much* lighter and smaller. The
SADM had a lot of failsafe and ruggedization extras in the mix, and was
a very different sort of device (and had a variable yield to boot).

The warhead for the 155mm artillery round was much smaller in diameter,
and somewhat longer, in a steel casing, and still fell below 100 pounds.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Plans ( The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War


He is talking apparently about the nuclear material in the core only being
somewhere around 11-13 kg (it is going to take more than 2 to 4 kilograms of
HE, Be, triggers, etc to handle the rest of the equation); in that same
article he refers to the W-54 as being the smallest practical sherical
device ever fielded, and then also describes the linear implosion devices
(which are narrower, but also longer) used in arty rounds. None of the
fielded weapons ever got below around 100 pounds or so.

Brooks

Linear implosion? How would that work?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 19:16:38 -0000, "Keith Willshaw" wrote:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" wrote:


What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
them.
The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.

However the 'micro fission device' is very real. The USA produced the
Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) that would fit in a large
duffle bag and 80-100 lbs and the soviets had a similar device

Clips of teams exercising with SADM can be seen at

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ssia/suitcase/

Alexander Lebed, ex Soviet General reported that a
significant number of Soviet nuclear demolition charges
were unaccounted for IRC.

Keith

But not a "suitcase" bomb. 100lbs is about the minimum.

Al Minyard

It was just a joke,mister...

For the rest,you are right
(SOS,why did I i just say???!!!)

"Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de news:
...
On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 11:42:19 +0100, "Mike" wrote:

Your French friends have many ones Mr.Minyard.
Launched from planes,SSBNs,carriers....
Tactical ones,strategical powerful ones...
And if they are as idiot as you always say,if what they do is
always ****,like you tell us post after post,
why couldn't the poles have their ones?
Do you consider they are even more stupid and weak than the French?
(No,you don't,of course.They helped Bush...)


;-ppppp


What I am saying is that the "suitcase" nuclear device does not exist.
No one, not the French, not the Poles, not the UK and not the US, has
them.
The "micro thermonuclear bomb is a myth, and not a very good one.

Al Minyard